OK, it has been reported all week that the person who coordinated and oversaw Rev Wright’s appearance at NPC was Clinton supporter Dr Barbara Reynolds. So what has the Clinton campaigned denied today regarding Rev Wright’s media spectacle? They denied they were supporter Dr Reynolds:

Tommy Christopher: I need to confirm that no-one connected with the campaign had anything to do with booking Reverend Wright at the National Press Club.

Clinton Spokesperson: We had nothing to do with the event at the National Press Club.

Hmmm, it took three days (to check for evidence to the contrary) for Clinton’s campaign to deny they are Dr Reynolds. The question should have been along the lines “did you and Dr Reynolds discuss the Wright event before it happened?”, or “did the Clinton campaign have contact with Reverend Wright in the weeks leading up to the event at NPC”? Here’s the deal with people who ponder what the meaning of “is” is – you need to use questions that cannot be dodged and so that you can open up opportunities to ask follow-up questions that can slowly refine the answer space to a point it cannot be equivocated on.

Later in this piece we see some cracks in the denial:

Tommy Christopher: Tell me this, then. What exactly is the journalistic merit of the Wright story? Not now, obviously it’s all over the news, but when it was first made an issue. After a year of bubbling under the surface, with no legitimate journalist willing to run it, why was it suddenly OK to report it?

William McCarren: I…I can’t say, I’m not going to… Look, there are a lot of important problems in this country, and you’d like to focus on them…but ther’s no doubt that Wright was newsworthy, he was on the front page of every newspaper, the reactions…

Emphasis mine. Not going to get into what?? Wright did not just pop up on the agenda Friday after the Moyers’ interview! These were scheduled way in advance. When was this scheduled? That’s a fair question! When did the invites to the friendly crowd go out? Did the Clinton campaign have any role in getting the word out? I would bet there are some emails or something out there advertising the event from the Clinton campaign.

Which would be damning since Obama’s campaign had no notice and was blind sided by the whole thing. Did the Campaign alert people to the event? Come on – this is journalism 101.

Even Dr Reynolds’ video denial up at the link above is not a denial of anything substantive or to the point. She first denies being an Obama ‘surrogate’ – which is not the same thing as a ‘supporter’ or ‘champion’ of course. Here is the definition of a ‘surrogate’. Interesting word choice there. Who said she had to be a ‘surrogate’ in order to knowingly and deliberately play a role in coordinating a PR event that would torpedo Clinton’s primary rival? Then she denies being Clinton ‘surrogate’ – as if that matters? Note what the term surrogate means:

surrogate |ˈsərəgit; -ˌgāt|
noun
a substitute, esp. a person deputizing for another in a specific role or office

Then she denies being a ‘local pastor’ (like that’s relevant!). She then simply goes on (after a nice cut out of the rest of her statements) to say she will speak truth and not be cowed. Where is her denial on coordinating the event to help Clinton’s campaign? Where is her denial she worked to help get this event timed to lead into the last big primary week? When was this event nailed down? See her response for yourself:

Did she or did she not coordinate the Wright event with the Clinton campaign in any manner – yes or no? How hard is this? Or is it simply the news media is afraid to learn how easily it can be duped (or bought)?